December 2018 – Public Policy Institute of California

Commentary: Peace in California’s Water Wars is Within Grasp

This commentary was published in CALmatters on December 19, 2018.

Dare we say it? The outlines of a truce in California’s unending water battles began to come into focus last week, though not everyone is willing to sign the treaty. The State Water Board adopted the first phase of a far-reaching revision to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento‒San Joaquin Delta and its watershed.

This is an effort to improve conditions for dwindling populations of endangered native fish such as salmon and steelhead. It also means an increase in water scarcity for farms and cities.

The mere adoption of the plan was significant. But something else happened in the board meeting that may in fact be more important and longer-lasting: state officials presented the framework of a peace treaty for Central Valley water wars.

With support from Governor Jerry Brown and Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom, most of the combatants negotiated the outlines of a comprehensive settlement agreement.

The Natural Resources Agency—including the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Wildlife—spent countless hours over several years convincing water users to develop a voluntary approach to improve ecosystem conditions for native fishes.

The approach state officials presented to the board would increase flows in rivers and the Delta and make major investments in habitat. And perhaps most important, it would create sustainable funding for these efforts (including fees on water diversions), while improving scientific research on and governance of restoration efforts.

To be clear, a framework was presented, not an actual settlement. But the framework contains commitments of water, habitat restoration and funding.

It also includes timelines for action from water users across the greater Sacramento–San Joaquin River watershed, and a willingness to get this settlement completed by the end of 2019. A few districts—such as the Oakdale, South San Joaquin and Merced Irrigation Districts—balked at the framework and are threatening litigation. But most of the watershed has signed on.

If this settlement is achieved and adopted by the board, it will be a major step forward in water management in the Central Valley. But a lot of work lies ahead. Water and habitat commitments—along with sources of funding—need further negotiation, and a robust governance and science program still needs to be designed. Additionally, many of the non-governmental environmental organizations that were mostly left out of negotiations need to be more involved.

Finally, the federal government can either be a partner or a roadblock to this effort. Federal representatives actively participated in negotiations and helped spur innovative approaches along the way.

But after the State Water Board’s vote, the US Bureau of Reclamation threatened litigation, and the Trump administration is seeking to roll back environmental standards in the Delta. Both actions have the potential to undo the settlements.

Despite these hurdles, there’s reason for optimism that there can be a truce in California’s water wars. What’s clear is that negotiated solutions to water conflicts are fairer and longer-lasting than top-down regulatory solutions or, worse yet, litigated solutions where judges end up trying to manage water.

Incoming Governor Newsom’s support and involvement will be essential to carry this effort to a positive conclusion. It should be a priority for his new administration.

Video: Californians and Their Government

As Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom prepares for his first term, half of Californians think he should take a different policy direction than Governor Brown. Four in ten approve of Newsom’s plans and priorities—while three in ten don’t yet know enough to have an opinion. These and other key findings of the latest PPIC Statewide Survey were outlined by Dean Bonner at a Sacramento briefing last week.

The survey asked Californians about four major policy areas that were highlighted in the governor’s campaign. Most see universal health coverage and free community college as top priorities, while fewer see universal preschool as a high or very high priority and only one in four prioritize high-speed rail.

The survey also asked how the state should use the projected surplus in the next budget year. A majority of Californians say they would prefer to use the surplus to increase funding for education and health and human services. Far fewer prefer to use it to pay down debt and build up a reserve or to spend on one-time funding for transportation, water, and infrastructure.

When asked to identify the state government’s highest priority in planning for the future, 39% name improving jobs and the economy, 20% say protecting the environment, and 15% say updating water and transportation infrastructure. Improving jobs and the economy is the highest priority across all parties and demographic groups.

Other survey highlights:

Two-thirds of Californians say the state is divided into two economic groups: the “haves” and the “have nots.” Four in ten characterize themselves as haves and 45% say they are have nots.
While more than half of Californians think the state is generally headed in the right direction, only about a third are satisfied with the way things are going in the nation. Half have no confidence that President Trump will make the right decisions for the country’s future.
Only two in ten likely voters approve of Congress; more than half see the shift in control of the US House from the Republicans to the Democrats as a good thing.
Two-thirds of state residents continue to see immigrants as a benefit, and there is still bipartisan support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally if certain requirements are met.

What Approval Ratings Say about Jerry Brown’s Legacy

Perhaps Governor Jerry Brown’s most important contribution—rooted in the higher approval ratings for the executive and legislative branches—was to restore public confidence in state government.

That’s my conclusion after we at the Public Policy Institute of California have taken 64 surveys since Brown took office in January 2011 asking the same question: “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling his job as governor of California?”

For most of the time since 2011, political gridlock stymied Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Congress.

But in California, Brown and the state legislature were solving problems. Survey results show that the public responded. Brown’s latest (and our final) approval rating stands at 51 percent. That’s 10 points higher than his approval rating in our January 2011 survey. Brown’s approval rating surpassed 60 percent twice—after his 2014 reelection and after Trump’s election, when our January 2017 survey had the governor at a 62 percent approval rating. Not surprisingly, Brown’s highest approval ratings today are among Democrats and self-identified liberals, 68 percent and 69 percent, respectively, and is least popular among Republicans at 18 percent and self-identified conservatives at 36 percent.

Notably, his canoe theory of politics—paddle to the left, and then paddle to the right—seems to have worked well. About half of independents and moderates approve of the governor. Brown’s approval rating has never dipped below 47 percent since the voters passed his Proposition 30 tax increase in October 2012. The recent campaign for the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the race for his successor apparently had no effect on Brown’s popularity.

Brown steered through troubled fiscal waters that damaged other political careers. The approval rating for Gray Davis hit 31 percent in the September 2003 PPIC survey as he faced the recall that ended his time in office. His replacement, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had a 25 percent approval rating in the November 2010 PPIC survey, as the state suffered from massive budget deficits and he and the legislature struggled with unpopular spending and tax decisions.

The state legislature had been mired in low approval ratings for years. Perhaps the legislature rode the coattails of Brown’s success—its approval rating increased by 21 points, from 26 percent in the January 2011 PPIC survey to 47 percent in December. California’s fiscal recovery was certainly tied to more positive views of the governor and legislature. The perception that the state budget situation “is a big problem” fell by 25 points, from 68 percent in January 2011 to 43 percent in January 2018. At the same time, during Brown’s time in office, the belief that the state is generally going in the right direction grew by 16 points to 54 percent in December 2018.

Brown and the legislature took the drama out of the annual budget process, passed popular laws on education funding and climate change, responded to crises such as drought and wildfire, and maintained a united front against Trump’s unpopular policies.

Will Brown be be a hard act to follow for Gavin Newsom?

Maintaining fiscal stability and an effective partnership with the state legislature will be the key ingredients. Jerry Brown will be leaving office with Californians in a better state of mind than they were in eight years ago. His tenure offers a successful model for governing the state in the future.

Election Takeaways: Golden State of Mind

With the release of California’s official Statement of the Vote, the state’s final tally is in for the November 2018 election. This midterm election will mostly be remembered for California’s role in changing party control of Congress. But several other statewide results also stand out:

High turnout. A record-setting 19,696,371 Californians—78% of eligible adults—were registered to vote by the deadline for the general election. An increase of 1,892,548 registered voters since the 2014 general election represents the biggest surge in voter registration between midterm elections in the past 20 years, according to California’s Secretary of State. The 12,712,542 voters who cast ballots is an all-time high for a midterm and, at 65% of registered voters and 50% of eligible adults, this is the highest midterm turnout in the past 30 years. These increases follow record low turnout in 2014. Many factors were at work in heightening political engagement this fall, including intense media interest in California congressional races that carried over from the June primary; voter participation that was stoked by disapproval of President Trump and dislike of his immigration, environment, and tax policies; and new state laws that are being implemented to make it easier for Californians to register to vote and cast ballots.

Blue wave. Democratic candidates won every statewide race and gained enough state legislative seats to have well over a two-thirds majority in the state assembly (60 Democrats, 20 Republicans) and state senate (29 Democrats, 11 Republicans). Democrats also increased their grip on the California congressional delegation (46 Democrats, 7 Republicans). What accounts for this one-party dominance? Midterm elections are often described as a referendum on the president, and President Trump’s approval rating was at 39 percent in the October PPIC survey. PPIC surveys also found an “enthusiasm gap” in voting for congressional candidates, which further skewed the partisan turnout in favor of Democrats. But the difficulties facing Republican candidates go beyond this fall’s political headwinds. The November ballot did not even include Republican candidates for US senator, lieutenant governor, or insurance commissioner—no Republicans made it past the top-two June primary for these offices. The Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2006 and, in this time, their share of the electorate has declined by 10 points (34% to 24%) while their ranks have also diminished (5.4 million to 4.7 million), according to the Secretary of State.
Diverse officeholders. Gavin Newsom was elected governor in the only statewide race featuring two white men. California’s other statewide winners were four women, three Latinos, two Asian Americans, one African American, and one openly gay man. Notably, women candidates won all their races while all those who lost—five Republican candidates, the sole No Party Preference candidate, and a nonpartisan candidate—were white men. However, regional diversity was missing, with six successful candidates from the San Francisco Bay Area and three from the Los Angeles region. There were none representing the populous regions of the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and the South Coast (Orange/San Diego)—or the more sparsely settled central coast and far north.
Words matter. Propositions 1 and 2, placed on the November ballot by the legislature, passed—consistent with the historically high pass rate for legislative ballot measures. However, just three of the eight citizens’ initiatives passed, consistent with the historically low pass rate for these types of initiatives. Among the most notable failures were the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the Proposition 10 rent control measure. The September PPIC Survey found that about half of likely voters favored the general idea of both the gas tax repeal (50%) and rent control (52%), but only four in ten said they would vote yes when they were read the ballot titles and labels. The defeat of Proposition 6 (56.8% no) and Proposition 10 (59.4% no) once again demonstrates that the devil is in the details when it comes to voter support for citizens’ initiatives on the ballot.

It’s no coincidence—given what PPIC studies say about the profiles of likely voters and nonvoters—that rising political participation in California means that the Democratic Party is becoming more dominant and that statewide officeholders are more likely to reflect the state’s diversity. And it is important to note that Californians continue to be highly selective about making public policy at the ballot box as more and more voters engage with the citizens’ initiative process. Still, millions of Californians are not registered to vote and don’t cast ballots. These residents tend to identify as “have nots” and are often most in need of government services. For this reason, the PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to provide a voice—for all adults in addition to likely voters—on state and national issues. Tracking policy preferences across the broadest swath of Californians is especially critical today, as newly elected state officeholders and state and federal legislators switch from campaign mode to policymaking.

Video: Higher Education as a Driver of Economic Mobility

Higher education plays a key role in helping Californians move up the income ladder—but equity gaps are a big challenge. Among young adults born in California, 60% of Asian Americans and 40% of whites have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos. At a Sacramento briefing yesterday, PPIC researcher Sarah Bohn outlined these and other key findings of a new report.

Bohn noted that “higher education is correlated with a host of benefits in today’s society.” Workers with at least a bachelor’s degree earn 73% more than high school graduates. While earnings levels are affected by many factors—including the subject area of a college major, geographic location, and the field of employment—Bohn stressed that “the higher the level of education you have, the greater the economic return that you experience.”

California has historically enjoyed strong economic and education gains. However, while the economy is currently booming, recent trends in educational attainment are not as encouraging. Young adults in California today are only slightly more likely to have graduated from college than older adults. Moreover, graduation rates are lower for low-income residents and underrepresented race/ethnic groups.

These equity gaps are especially troubling because low-income, Latino, and African American students—as well as students who would be the first generation in their families to attend college—make up the vast majority of California’s high school population. The community colleges, UC, and CSU have undertaken serious efforts to narrow these gaps—but, as Bohn noted, all educational sectors, including K–12 schools and private institutions, play an important role.

California’s higher education systems have been implementing policies and programs that are likely to increase college graduation rates among the state’s diverse population. Bohn concluded by highlighting the progress that has been made and outlining additional actions that can help more Californians—particularly underrepresented students—benefit from higher education.

Money Measures and the November Ballot

Earlier this year, we looked at how voters responded to the 107 money measures on the June ballot. The November election featured a considerably larger number of taxes, bonds, and fees: local governments asked voters to make decisions on 397 money-related questions, by our count. Most of these measures passed (314 or 79%), though success rates varied across types of taxation or borrowing.

Overall, most bonds passed (98 of 128), but the share of successful bonds for K–12 schools and community colleges (92 of 116, or 79%) was higher than the share of general obligation bonds in other spending areas (6 of 12, or 50%). Since Proposition 39 (which passed in 2000) lowered the passage threshold for school bond measures to 55%, more than 1,400 school bonds have been placed on ballots, and voters have approved more than 80% of them. Of the 92 school bonds that passed this year, 65 met the 55% threshold but fell short of a two-thirds majority.

Parcel taxes, California’s unique way of increasing property taxes in the Proposition 13 era, were the least successful type of taxes on the November ballot. However, voters did approve 60% of these measures (36 of 60), which is in line with their historical success rate. Most parcel taxes proposed by school districts passed (11 of 16, or 69%), while those placed on the ballot by fire districts were less successful (9 of 19, or 47%).

Through 2017, local governments had proposed 80 measures to tax cannabis businesses, generally based on gross receipts, size (measured in square footage), or some combination of the two. On the November ballot, there were 75 cannabis tax measures. As has been the case historically, voters approved the vast majority (69, or 92%).

Is California shedding its reputation as an anti-tax state? The fact that local measures have been successful nearly 80% of the time does not necessarily reflect voter support for taxes in general. According to recent PPIC Statewide Surveys, a majority of Californians feel that their tax burden is greater than it should be and see Proposition 13 as “mostly a good thing.” Also, savvy local leaders put money measures on the ballot only when polling or canvassing suggests the probability of passage is high.

A more precise interpretation of recent results might be that local governments have been very successful at identifying the type of taxes and purposes around which they can mount successful campaigns. Moreover, recent local measures have been put before voters during a period of economic growth. It will be interesting to see if they continue to succeed going forward.

Video: New Insights into California Arrests

Crime, policing, and community relations are subject to heated debate, but little is known about the first step in the criminal justice process: arrests. Who is arrested in California and what are they arrested for? How have arrest patterns changed over time and how do they differ across the state? Last week in Sacramento, PPIC researcher Magnus Lofstrom outlined findings from a new report and Brandon Martin—a PPIC research associate—moderated a panel discussion that put these trends in the context of state legislation and local police-community relations.

The PPIC report finds that overall arrest rates have dropped dramatically over the past few decades, largely due to declines in misdemeanor arrests. While there have been significant declines in arrests among juveniles and young adults, men, and African Americans, arrestees still tend to be younger, male, and nonwhite. After presenting these and other key findings, Lofstrom stressed that “this report raises more questions than it answers.” Future research, he said, will explore the factors that contribute to trends and differences in arrest rates across demographic groups and jurisdictions across the state. It will also look at the impact of recent criminal justice reforms.

The panelists focused on the importance of addressing the larger issue of long-term trust between law enforcement and the communities it serves. Gabriel Caswell, counsel to the California Senate Public Safety Committee, said that recent reforms such as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act have tried to strike a balance between officer safety and community transparency: “If the community has at least somewhat more access than they’ve been given historically, I think that will go a long way toward rebuilding trust.”

Marisa Arrona, local safety solutions project director for Californians for Safety and Justice, highlighted efforts to shift from reactive policing to the Blueprint for Shared Safety: “Shared safety is more than the absence of crime; it’s got to be the presence of well-being.” Instead of assessing safety only through crime rates, communities can also use other measures, such as harm reduction among vulnerable populations, access to victim services, or the number of former offenders who have access to jobs.

Daniel Hahn, Sacramento police chief, also cautioned against relying exclusively on crime numbers: “You’ve got to be very careful of what’s behind the numbers and make sure it’s actually meaningful to the community.” He stressed the need to look beyond simple solutions. In order to build trust between police and the communities, he added, “We gotta change the way we hire, change the way we train, include the community in the police department and the police department in the community.”

Adapting to an Uncertain Water Future

As the world’s biggest climate meeting continues in Poland this week, the growing threats from climate change―and the lack of large-scale action to match the risks―have been much in the news. Global, national, and statewide assessments all point to severe consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not greatly reduced. Evidence is growing that climate change is a “threat multiplier,” increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters worldwide and here in California. And just this past week, the Global Carbon Project reported that emissions are rising rapidly, making it even more difficult to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and heightening the possibility of more-frequent and more-damaging climate impacts.

These reports all point to the same policy direction for California. While it is important that the state continue its leadership on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is time to greatly increase efforts at adaptation.

Water is where climate change is having its most direct and measurable impact in California. A recent PPIC report found that five climate pressures—warming temperatures, shrinking snowpack, shorter wet seasons, more volatile precipitation, and rising seas—affect all aspects of water. We recommended a suite of integrated reforms to adapt to these changes. These include better planning for water use in cities and farms, and for the environment; upgrading the state’s water management infrastructure; improving the way the state allocates water; and coming up with innovative new funding mechanisms.

Although all of the reforms are important, two—upgrading infrastructure and providing adequate funding—are the most critical. California’s water management infrastructure is vast and complex. Nearly 1,500 dams and reservoirs provide numerous services, some of which are at cross purposes with each other: they store water, reduce flood risk, generate electricity, help maintain downstream ecosystems, and provide recreation. Large volumes of existing and potential storage occur in more than 500 groundwater basins.

The above- and below-ground storage is linked from far-northern California to the suburbs of San Diego by a network of thousands of miles of canals and aqueducts, as well as rivers that function as aqueducts. California could not function without this networked “grid.” This grid is the state’s most valuable asset for adapting to an uncertain climate future.

We recommend that this grid be upgraded. A top priority includes repairing or strengthening dams, canals, and aqueducts—most of which were designed and built more than 50 years ago using outdated hydrology that doesn’t reflect a changing climate. Another upgrade is adding connections to the grid so that water can be conveyed more easily to where it’s needed for replenishing groundwater storage or to support water trading. And integrating operations of the grid, possibly involving a wholesale change in the way it is managed and governed, should also be prioritized.

But talk about upgrading the grid will be insufficient if the state does not find a way to pay for it. The defeat of the statewide water bond, Proposition 3, in November may be an indication of “bond fatigue.” Instead, the burden for paying for this upgrade is likely to fall upon local communities, who already shoulder about 85% of the costs for water management every year. This will be a contentious but necessary public debate. Without new resources, upgrading the grid will be very difficult.

The climate is changing, and the direction of change poses great challenges for California water management. But the state has a very large portfolio of assets to help adapt to this change. If these assets are managed well—and California makes well-funded investments in upgrades and focuses on sustainability—the state can weather these changes with minimal social and economic disruptions.

Video: Modernizing California’s Education Data System

California has invested billions of dollars in public education reforms over the past decade, and student outcomes have improved in many areas. But the state can’t answer key questions about student progress because it doesn’t have comprehensive data on important transitions. For example, it can’t easily track student movement between high school and college or from college into the workforce. With new state leadership about to take over in Sacramento, the time may be right for an integrated data system that can help policymakers, educators, and students monitor educational progress and outcomes.

Last week in Sacramento, PPIC researcher Jacob Jackson outlined a new report on the need for such a system and Hans Johnson, director of the PPIC Higher Education Center, moderated a panel discussion about the benefits and challenges of creating one.

As Jackson pointed out, most other states already have integrated education data systems. Colleen Moore, assistant director of the Education Insights Center, added that California “already has four pretty good longitudinal data systems—it’s just that they’re within each of the four education segments and they’re not connected.” As a result, student demographics, coursework, grades, and degrees or certificates can be tracked within each segment but not across segments.

Natasha Collins, principle consultant on education for the Assembly Appropriations Committee, noted that it would not be technically difficult to create a repository that links data and follows student movement through the K–12 system and the three postsecondary systems. “It might make sense to move forward with those core components and then potentially add on other agencies—even things like corrections, or the Department of Rehabilitation—so we can really see student outcomes.” She added, “We could also have information on employment and earnings outcomes at least for students who go to college at some point.”

So why doesn’t California have one? Collins noted that the legislature has considered several bills that would set up a system and recently held a hearing on the topic. Moreover, technical plans to link data across the higher education systems have been drawn up in the past. The panelists agreed that the main barriers are not technical—they are political and logistical.

Lande Ajose, executive director of California Competes, stressed the need for an entity to oversee data collection and access: “The state needs an independent body that would be responsible for collecting, cleaning, analyzing data, and making sure it’s accessible to many other parties.” One stumbling block to creating such a body is determining its scope—should it be simply a secure data repository, or should it have the authority to coordinate segments and/or monitor their accountability?

Laura Metune, vice chancellor for external relations at the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, highlighted another barrier: “One of the challenges has been direction and resources from the state level.” She noted that higher education systems have worked together on data sharing, and her own office shares a lot of data with researchers and the public. But, she added, information sharing requires resources, and “we have a really small staff.”

Ultimately, the panelists put the ball in Governor-Elect Newsom’s court. As Ajose put it, “I really do think that this issue of a data system requires gubernatorial leadership, that the governor has the unique ability to set the stage around what is important within higher education.”

2020 Census: Counting California’s Northern and Sierra Regions

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. Our series of blog posts examines what’s at stake for California and the challenges facing the 2020 Census, including communities that are at risk of being undercounted.

PPIC’s interactive census maps are an important tool for Californians working to ensure an accurate census count. Using estimates from the Census Bureau and the Federal Communications Commission, they highlight hard-to-count communities across the state and pinpoint reasons why certain areas may be hard to reach.

Home to 1.4 million people, California’s northern and Sierra regions cover around 40% of the state, spanning 23 counties: Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, and Tuolumne. The hardest-to-count areas in these regions are found in Arcata, Chico, and Mammoth Lakes in Humboldt, Butte, and Mono Counties, respectively. Households in these very hard-to-count areas are the least likely to respond initially to census forms, according to Census Bureau estimates that draw on local demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends.

Some highlights:

Follow-up from census workers will likely be needed across the north and Sierras. In most census tracts in California’s northernmost and rural Sierra counties, estimates suggest 19% to 29% of households would need in-person follow-up from census workers to be counted. Further, these estimates from the Census Bureau predate the Camp, Carr, and Mendocino Complex fires, which have likely made it more difficult to count residents.
Housing conditions could be an obstacle to counting residents in coastal areas as well as around the northern Sacramento Valley. In these areas, large shares of housing units are rentals, overcrowded rentals, and/or mobile homes—all of which can make residents harder to count accurately. For example, more than 20% of households live in mobile homes in much of Trinity and Tehama Counties, and one out of five rentals in northeastern Siskiyou County is overcrowd Recent wildfires have likely increased the share of households in hard-to-count housing, as displaced families seek shelter elsewhere.
Low internet access may pose a challenge throughout the regions. The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Northeastern and central Sierra counties have some of the lowest rates of internet access in the state: in Plumas County, for instance, fewer than 200 out of every 1,000 households have high-speed internet access, on average. In places with limited residential internet access, participation may rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.
Undercounting Native Americans would disproportionately affect northern and Sierra counties. African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans have historically been undercounted in the census. There are tribal lands throughout these regions, which have a higher share of Native American residents than other parts of the state. Working with tribal governments to reach Native Americans will be an important part of accurately counting residents in the northern and Sierra regions.
Local knowledge is necessary for effective outreach. Colusa County has the regions’ highest share of residents from historically undercounted racial/ethnic groups (60%) and the highest share of noncitizens (15%). Noncitizens may be less likely to respond to the 2020 Census due to the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about deportation and privacy. Ensuring that these communities are counted in 2020 will require an understanding of the local landscape. For example, one area east of Susanville in Lassen County that includes two correctional facilities has a high share of people of color. However, incarcerated people, who are counted where they are held, are unlikely to be undercounted in the census.
Some northern counties have high shares of young children. Young children are historically underrepresented in the census. Along the I-5 corridor in the Sacramento Valley, and in parts of Lake, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Lassen Counties, more than 8.5% of residents are children under five years old, compared to 6.5% statewide.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in other regions of the state.